Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kinist[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a recreation of Kinism, and like all previous incarnations of that article, this one has no reliable sources nor proof of notability. It also seems to be a soapbox, openly describing non-kinist worldviews as "horrifying". See also this AFD. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This small movement is mentioned in the book Quiverfull: inside the Christian patriarchy movement (Beacon Press 2009, p. 122, available at G-books). The supporters and opponents of the movement led a dispute on the websites Puritan News Weekly and Faith and Heritage, however, I'm not sure whether the websites could be considered as reliable sources. That's all I found. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a couple paragraphs in Intelligence Report [1], not quite significant coverage, but it makes me wonder if there's more out there. Also, I trimmed down the article to cut out some of the major POV issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christian Reconstructionism on the basis of similarity and the lack of complete sources for this particular subject. The material really looks like it would be more relevant and have better support in the context of a larger, established article. Several Times (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They really don't seem that similar to me. Christian Reconstructionists do have out-of-the-mainstream views, but they aren't racist (at least not openly, anyway), whereas this group seems to be primarily about race and not much else. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their focus is different and merging could cause more damage than benefit. However, User:Several Times is right, with such incoherent puzzle pieces it is difficult to compile a decent article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a little reading I do see that Kinism is more of a racial belief system than a religious one. Perhaps it would be more appropriate within the article on paleoconservatism. Wherever it goes, it looks like retaining NPOV may be difficult. Several Times (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References from reliable sources have now been added. St Anselm (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by StAnselm. It is now a useful and reliably sourced addition to our coverage of US religious movements. I would suggest renaming it to Kinism. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an attack article. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am relisting this for further consideration. I would add, however, that I would not consider this an attack article; sourced criticism is a legitimate part of article development. Having said that, it is a matter for editorial judgement whether the criticism goes too far and requires balancing content. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are insufficient to write an article covering the subject in full since they are mostly trivial (and adversarial) mentions. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per StAnselm. i do see that this is quite borderline as far as the number of reliable sources goes, but i think that the book Quiverfull is solid (let's recall that sources don't have to be about a topic to help it meet the gng, but have to do more than mention it. this book does that), and can in no way be considered an adversarial source. also, in the case of extremely fringey hate groups, i would argue that splc studies should count as reliable sources. they are often the first to discover and investigate these groups, and their reports are cited in scholarly works by academics who study new religious movements (although admittedly that doesn't seem to be happening yet with kinism). although the splc might reasonably be called an adversarial source, i think that the fact that their research is both conducted by and taken seriously by scholars is reason enough to count it as reliable sourcing on this kind of topic. i also support a move to Kinism.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, when I first commented I had expected this to be quickly deleted, so it's good to see it getting a fair hearing. I'm still torn, since there really isn't that much out there on them. But I do think the article is basically neutral in that it accurately represents the treatment in the subject in reliable sources. I suppose my inclination would be to keep the content for now and open a discussion to discuss the most suitable merge target. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline, but the present minimal coverage is the appropriate extent. I do not see how we can get NPOV with a merge: it's too much of a value judgment lumping all similar organizations together into a single article as if they were all entirely alike. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keeping people informed of these groups is important. More are just harmless imbeciles, but some can be dangerous. References have been found which are good enough. Dream Focus 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.